A shy Manhattan schoolgirl who gets a kick out of nursery songs and TV themes was among 261 people sued yesterday for downloading music from the Internet.

Brianna LaHara, a curly-haired 12-year-old honor student who started seventh grade yesterday at St. Gregory the Great Catholic school on W. 90th St., couldn't believe she's one of the "major offenders" the music moguls are after.

"Oh, my God, what's going to happen now?" she asked after hearing of the suit. "My stomach is all in knots."

Told she may have to go to court, Brianna's eyes widened behind wire-rimmed glasses and she said, "I'm just shocked that of all the people that do this, I'm on the list."

The Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) said the suits filed yesterday included about 60 that targeted suspects in New York who downloaded more than 1,000 songs.

The group blames computer users such as Brianna, who use software programs to trade music with others on the Internet, for a 30% drop in music sales.

Each person sued yesterday could be liable for fines up to $150,000 for each poached track.

'Appropriate action'

Experts had predicted a large number of the suits likely would name youngsters.

"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation, but when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action," said Carey Sherman, president of the recording association.

Sherman warned that the group may file thousands more lawsuits against people who use programs like KaZaA, Grokster, Gnutella (news - web sites), Blubster and iMesh.

Brianna's mother, Sylvia, 40, director of a nurse placement agency, said her daughter was helping her 9-year-old brother with his homework when the Daily News arrived at their apartment on W. 84th St. with word about the suit.

"For crying out loud, she's just a child," the mother said. "This isn't like those people who say, 'My son is a good boy,' and he's holding a bloody knife. All we did was use a service."

The mother said she signed up for KaZaA, paying a $29.95 fee. "If you're paying for it, you're not stealing it, so what is this all about?" she asked.

She said Brianna downloaded music by Christina Aguilera and Mariah Carey, along with the themes to television shows like "Family Matters" and "Full House" - and even the nursery song, "If You're Happy and You Know It."

"That's really threatening to the music industry," she scoffed.

"If this was something we were profiting from, that's one thing. But we were just listening and sometimes dancing to the music," said the mother.

She vowed to get a lawyer to fight the suit, which she termed "ridiculous."

If they're going to sue people for downloading music why don't they sue everyone who does it? It's like if you kill someone you're going to jail, they don't pick and choose who goes to jail. I find it hilarious that there's terrorists in this country, rapists, murderers and so on, and they're concerned about a 12 year old girl listening to music. Come on.

Tue Sep 09, 2003 5:57 pm

Awww Ðämn

Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 2511
Location: barbary coast

$150,000 per song

this guy is being sued too. the washington post published his response to the charges and itemized songs he thinks he shouldn't be fined for.

I am writing in response to your subpoena and registered letter charging me with "unlawfully downloading and trading copyrighted music." Frankly, I see no reason why we can't reach an amicable settlement and avoid frivolous litigation, not to mention yelling and screaming.

As your letter notes, U.S. copyright law allows you to collect damages of $ 750 to $ 150,000 for each illegally downloaded song. But come on -- no court is going to award you a dime for some of the so-called "song" files that you say I ripped off:

"Whoomp! (There It Is)" / Tag Team I hear this all the time at the ballpark, so you can have it back.

"Troubled Times" / Fountains of Wayne Okay, I did download this. But when I tried to play it, my computer kept saying, "An error of Type 2 has occurred." So I dragged it to the trash. No way I'm paying for that.

"Long Time Gone" / Dixie Chicks My copy gets really loud in the middle of the song and then suddenly goes back to normal at the end. It's really annoying.

"Girl You Know It's True" / Milli Vanilli This song file is in violation of federal truth-in-labeling laws.

actually i think the more stories about idiots who try to explain how extra special and innocent they are the more (at least personally) back the music industry has.

I mean come on, these fucks are just retarted. Not knowing that it was the law doesn't work when your speeding, when your killing, or when your stealing, it may and probably will especially in the little girls case get her left off easy in the courtroom. But wait lets not forget about the media's angle of pinning the maximum penalty possible right next to the little girls list of innocent shit music. NO ONE EVER GETS THE MAXIMUM PENALTY! This is sensationalism in the worst way.

We all know that when we're downloading music we're breaking the law. Especially now because it is a huge fucking deal. Bottom line, if you don't like the charges don't do it, if you want to risk it then don't play dumbass if and when you get caught, parents this also means you, don't play dumbass because your kids playing dumbass. It's a lovely thing to do and i know everybody does it but does it have to be so fucking apparent that we're all shrewd weasels that like to play victim and feel pity for ourselves when we know we fucked up.

p.s. this isn't being directed at anyone here unless it applies to people here. I just like giving my perspective on this so no needs to feel like i'm talking to them personally. I download music, i know it's stealing, i try to be smart about it but if i get caught i'm not going to lie and conive my way out of it.

Wed Sep 10, 2003 7:02 am

FoJaR

Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Posts: 1534
Location: VA.

and where do they get off fining the people for 750 dollars a song? last time i checked, if you stole something, you gave it back, or payed for it. it's a fucking song for chirsake. it's bullshit. 750 - 150000 is in no way reasonable. hell, 10$ a track isnt reasonable.

the recording industry can go to hell.

Wed Sep 10, 2003 7:21 am

FoJaR

Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Posts: 1534
Location: VA.

and wasnt the girl paying for kazaa? wasnt that money supposed to go to the recording industry in some way? (i didnt say the artists because we know non of them get money from that shit) someone explain what is wrong with these people.

Wed Sep 10, 2003 7:23 am

Jesus Frank

Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 2318
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Doesn't that kazaa money just go to the funders of kazaa to support their cause or something? I'm not too up on it, but I believe that's what they are for. If it is, I guess she was misinformed.

I agree with you excellrec. It's a self-defense mechanism that the RIAA only benefits from in the end. I'm sure there are people out there that argue it from a better angle though, and I hope they won't go ignored. Hopefully there can be a sensational little David out there who can get some media attention and support.

Wed Sep 10, 2003 8:21 am

pericles_perry

Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 116

FoJaR wrote: and where do they get off fining the people for 750 dollars a song? last time i checked, if you stole something, you gave it back, or payed for it. it's a fucking song for chirsake. it's bullshit. 750 - 150000 is in no way reasonable. hell, 10$ a track isnt reasonable.

the recording industry can go to hell.

word to that.

and how exactly does the riaa automatically attribute all of the pretty minimal drop of 5% in sales over the last 5 years to music piracy. is it completely out of the question that the fact the radio has become an outlet for about 5 artists total could account for maybe 2 to 3% of that drop.

or is it completely out of the question that music downloading has helped the music industry. i know i buy a lot more music than i used to. and i know people like my parents might dl a couple songs, but since they dont have a burner theyll still buy a cd if they like it enough.

this whole case is just ridiculous to me. i sincerely hope the riaa crumbles because of this.

Wed Sep 10, 2003 6:35 pm

Fladlien

Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Posts: 782
Location: Iowa

Call me crazy, but anybody who pays for kazaa probably deserves to be sued at one point or another in their life.

Wed Sep 10, 2003 7:49 pm

Hero

Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 1186
Location: Burlington,VT

Fladlien wrote: Call me crazy, but anybody who pays for kazaa probably deserves to be sued at one point or another in their life.

Crazy.....That is the dumbest thing i've ever read and i read the entire Sweet Valley High series.-MOE

Wed Sep 10, 2003 8:04 pm

Fladlien

Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Posts: 782
Location: Iowa

Ok, you spend $30 a month on kazaa. For that same price you could buy 3 CDs a month. That's 36 CDs a year. Now let's just say for the sake of arguement that only have of them are good. That's 18 CDs you can listen to. Maybe I'm a simple man, but if I had 18 good CDs each year, I would die musically satisfied.

When I posted that, of course I didn't mean that she should actually be sued, I was just poking fun.

Wed Sep 10, 2003 8:07 pm

Machiavel

Joined: 30 Oct 2002
Posts: 766

Yeah this is retarded.

I think its really abuse of litigation. Im fairly sure alot of the things they use to prosocute people on are loopholes in laws that were put in place for other means.

And i agree WTF is with 150k per song? its as if they are trying to recoup their 30% gross losses from one person who downloaded songs. 1k songs * 150k a peice is 150 000 000 dollars. I think thats a little fucking unreasonable.

I also agree that its still unproven that downloading music is the sole cause for the dip in the music industries profits.

what gets lost amongst all the numbers about how the riaa has lost money over the last few years is the fact that over the last few years, there have been fewer and fewer records getting released.

and less people are buying music because a whole hell of a lot of it sucks ass, or sounds the same as something else. why buy the nelly album, the st. lunatics album, and the chingy album when they all sound 95% the same?

if the record companies don't realize that they are the ones fucking their own shit up then no amount of seizing internet 'pirates' will save them.

and another thing, NONE of the money recieved in these settlements is going to any of the artists(which is who the riaa is apparently looking out for), it's going to the riaa. not labels, not artists, the ri fucking aa.

so basically, yeah, fuck the riaa. their heads are up their asses and they want us to pull it out for them. i sure as shit ain't getting my hands dirty.

props to charles bronson.

Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:23 pm

Jump to:

Goto page 1, 2, 3Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours. The time now is Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:23 pm